 Any improvements to a country's health information system, while expensive up-front, will make provider monitoring much easier later on.  It is recommended that Namibia set up a national health information system before implementing a pay for performance model.
	In addition, the desired outcomes and targets must be decided upon, which is much easier said than done.  For an illness like HIV/AIDS, number cured obviously cannot be a monitored outcome.  Patients in ongoing treatment, however, and cases of HIV detected certainly can.  One measure that Namibia may want to consider is number of new HIV cases detected and put on ongoing therapy, in order to ensure that the adverse selection mentioned above.  In many ways, incentivizing numbers of clients rather than percentages may be a good idea to ensure comprehensive care for HIV-positive citizens.
	One final recommendation for Namibia when implementing a pay for performance model, ensure that supplies are available on the anticipated level needed before introducing a bonus model.  As HIV testing will likely increase, and ARVs will logically be used more as a result, stock needs to be adequate to meet increased demand.  Another related recommendation is to do implement the new bonus system as fast as possible.  If testing or new cases are incentivized, there is a chance that providers will hold off on HIV testing until the new system is installed and they can be paid more for providing the same service.
	Provided Namibia prepare properly and set appropriate targets, pay for performance can be a critical tool in stopping the AIDS epidemic in their country.  As outlined in this paper, however, when setting targets it is of the utmost importance that benchmarks be analyzed for potential consequences, including unintended effects to the provision of and quality of care.  It is also important that the country ensure that its health system is both financially and technologically prepared for the additional anticipated stress to its country's healthcare infrastructure.



	In cases of civil war or armed conflict, the question of how to strengthen health systems is a complicated one, as government resources and attentions are often focused on other, more immediate problems.  However, the importance of providing basic medical services to all citizens cannot be understated.  Individually displaced people (IDPs) have very specific medical needs due to their circumstances.  Infectious diseases often run wild among IDP communities, and mental health is an ongoing issue that often goes overlooked.  Some of the various issues in IDP and conflict situations are issues of access, doctor migration out of country, and financing.  
	While conflict often causes NGOs and bilateral agencies to intervene, this adds yet another level of coordination to the puzzle.  In this paper, various armed conflicts around the world will be discussed, highlighting particular health system needs and basic health-systems failings.  In addition, some common considerations, such as the common use of mobile health clinics and the provision of mental health care, are also discussed.  Finally, the special case of Nepal deserves attention. 